Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About 3WhiteFox3

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sarasota, Florida, United States
  1. This is an attempt at an aggressive Jedi/Han deck using the Desolation Objective Sets. 2x Message From Beyond 2x A Heroes Journey 2x In You Must Go 2x Secret Of Yavin 4 2x Questionable Contacts Basically, use the power trio of Yoda/Han/Luke. Use your weenies as a defensive wall to help set up your heroes, enhance them as much as possible and go to town. Message From Beyond is there for the great Old Ben's Spirit and the nifty events that it adds to really mess with the DS while setting up a nigh-unstoppable force. Unfortunately, this is a deck that can either work amazingly well early on, or shutdown quick, but when it works, it really kills the Dark Side. Tell me what you think. Comments, questions, advice, you name it.
  2. @Gribble - I don't agree with the 'it's not in the movies' argument. It took me a bit of time to understand why I wasn't completely comfortable with it, but I'll try to explain. First, I want to make it clear that the Star Wars movies should be looked at for the tone, pacing and inspiration for any Star Wars role playing game; however, to make a certain option bad or unimportant is simply bad game design. If the game designers included an option for a player to be a doctor then that option should be a good one, and if they intended for that option to suck then that shows poor regard for their player-base. This is for several reasons, chiefly, an RPG isn't a movie, this seems obvious, but I myself have run into this problem before both in my own GMing and in the GMing of others. A movie (especially one as fast-paced and action packed as a Star Wars movie) has different character priorities and ideals than RPGs. An RPG's goals are two-fold, creating a compelling story with collaboration between players and GM; and to have an enjoyable experience for each individual player. That second goal mean that if a player wants to play a doctor then he should feel that being a doctor is fun and worth-while. If being a doctor is more or less pointless then he's probably going to not be very happy. I've found this to be true for my own group; we have a doctor, but he seems to be more effective as a mechanic/scholar/information repository (admittedly, that's because his skill levels don't matter nearly as much as his 5 intellect, but that's another problem that's been discussed to death) I will hold this as a negative thing, he wanted to play a doctor, but being a doctor has not been very interesting or important to him. Now, he has been useful, but what he wanted to do was be a doctor but the system says that being a doctor is not important which in my honest opinion is bad for the game. Now I believe that the designers do intend what is best for the game and for their players, so I'm confident that this will be something that will be rectified, if not in the finished rules, then in one of the future books.
  3. aramis said: a blue die is better than removing a black in general, but removing the black pulls the edge-cases in… as worst case is black fail or threat coupled with blank blue. For the skilled guy, killing a black may be more useful, especially if he has several yellow already. Also, normal aim caps at 2d… dropping a precise aim first can add removal of a black as well. aramis said: a blue die is better than removing a black in general, but removing the black pulls the edge-cases in… as worst case is black fail or threat coupled with blank blue. For the skilled guy, killing a black may be more useful, especially if he has several yellow already. Also, normal aim caps at 2d… dropping a precise aim first can add removal of a black as well. You have to pay for Precise Aim, Aim is something anyone could do. Precise aim should not be only useful for edge-cases, it should be strictly better.
  4. aramis said: a blue die is better than removing a black in general, but removing the black pulls the edge-cases in… as worst case is black fail or threat coupled with blank blue. For the skilled guy, killing a black may be more useful, especially if he has several yellow already. Also, normal aim caps at 2d… dropping a precise aim first can add removal of a black as well. You have to pay for Precise Aim, Aim is something anyone could do. Precise aim should not be only useful for edge-cases, it should be strictly better.
  5. These changes are indeed awesome. I can't wait to print them out and see how they do in actual play. I'd like to thank the developers that allowed this open play-test to be possible, it's great to know that our opinions and ideas had a direct impact on how the final product will look.
  6. Jegergryte said: See. This is the same issue that I have when making my supplement - hence the reference to stats in the book, versus reproducing published material. What I'm doing is converting previously published material and making my conversions accessible for free. I am assuming this is not copyright infringement and illegal. I mean, I would do it anyway for my own purposes, but is it illegal to share home-brewed/converted stuff for free? I assume there is no law against house-rules in general, but is the sharing of these allowed? I'm no expert on law or anything, but I would assume - it seems logical - that freely making home-made material, with reference to rules, pages and the like should be ok. As long as no reproduction from the published material is part of the document. I know its different, but its like when writing academic papers, you have to cite other scientists and theories - because they're not your own ideas - when publishing your own thoughts. Of course a few deviate from this for various reasons, but it should be clearly stated from where ideas are coming from. Same thing here, except more strict, you can refer to auto-fire rules on pp.xx in the EotE book, but you cannot reproduce it word for word. Similarly, if you change this for house-rules purposes, I would assume you could write something like: auto-fire weapons under these house rules deviate from the ones presented in the core book. Instead of what is presented there (pp.xx) you add a challenge die and change advantage cost to 1 advantage for purposes of activating additional hits. Similarly, freely making available from google drive or dropbox (or your own blog or GSA) adventures and the like can't be too problematic (although drivethrurpg might be a different matter), as long as nothing within the document reproduces published material. Refer to pages and rules shouldn't be problematic, as long as these rules themselves are not in the document. I'm not a lawyer, but looking at Fair Use laws, I feel pretty confident that home-brew would be protected.Fair Use has 4 factors that determine whether or not something would be covered under fair use. (source) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. The nature of the copyrighted work. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. So, from my reading, home brew should be ok by all 4; we are not doing it for profit but so that other games can be enhanced by the home brew. The nature of EotE is a role-playing game, a medium that naturally encourages people to create material for their games. Few home-brews or house-rules will use up more than the rules governing the creation of the home-brew resource in question (ex: Making a new adversary requires only the basic rules and the stat-block that is used for that adversary.). Home-brew is not going to hurt the market for the game at large, in fact home-brew encourages purchasing of the rules to find more content that can be incorporated into the home-brew. So, I think that unless the mods have a problem with the home-brew, we're fine, I don't think either the copyright holders for Star Wars or for EotE are going to care if we make a home-brew Slave 1 or Millenium Falcon. There are several websites with entire sections devoted to home-brew, since I haven't heard of any legal action taken on them, I think that we'd be in the clear. In fact, I intend to create some home-brew of my own, based off some of the cooler things in the Saga Edition The Force Unleashed book. tldr; I don't think that we should be worried unless we are asked specifically to stop.
  7. AFrede said: With the week 11 changes to Precise Aim it is now slightly better. If you only have one rank in it you are still better off aiming, and if you do manage to have two ranks in it then it would be worthwhile, but only against enemies with at least two defense. A lot of times enemies will have two setback die in the pool, one from defense and one from cover but it is VERY rare that enmies will have more than one defense. For the talent to be usefull it should specify setback die rather than defense or it should be changed to be similar to how the new Bodyguard works, you suffer a bit of strain to downgrade the difficulty of the check. As it stands now it is still a talent that does nothing most of the time, and if you manage to get it ranked then it will be useful once in a blue moon. According to one of the previous updates, cover does increase your ranged defence, so precise aim will benefit if your opponent has particularly good cover or armor that adds defence, so it's a bit more useful; though I would like to see it act like the True Aim manuever, giving the benefits of aiming and reducing the defence.
  8. Cyril said: gribble said: Cool - nice work. Been thinking the same thin myself as I went to convert old aventures for my campaign. Surely a Rancor (and possibly an Acklay) should be Nemesis' rather than Henchmen though? Thanks. I had thought about it, but Henchman feels pretty good for the Acklay. I'd probably put a Tyrant or a Bull Rancor as a Nemesis, though they're frightening enough even as a Henchman. I disagree, the Rancor was a solo adversary for Luke in RoTJ, that in and of itself shows that it is designed to be used as a solo, nasty creature that was threatening one of the most powerful characters in the entire series.Anyway, If it's ok I'd like to stat up some beasts as well.
  9. Boehm said: I agree its not a very amazing talent, and pretty **** overprised in the assassin tree … however its not completely useless as it does allow a character to make a more accurate sniper style attack (and thus fits nicely from a thematic point of view) remember nothing prevents the assassin from BOTH spending 2 maneuvers in roudn 1 to aim …then spending another maneuver to do precise aim in round 2 to remove any black dice …thus in effect allowing him a double-aim for that vital one shot one kill sniper shot from extreme range against a target in cover … Doesn't aim only work if you don't take any other maneuvers or actions between the aim and the attack?
  10. $hamrock said: I had high hopes…. Then I read this…. "The trilogy will continue the story of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia beyond "Return of the Jedi," and that hope left. They are already messing it up. No way is Ford going to sign on for this, and that means a new actor playing the same character, and they are going to try and play it off like it didn't happen. I can't stand that! Hated it in the old Batman's, vacations, etc… still don't like it now. I'm going to wait and see before I make any hasty judgements. I honestly have been very impressed by Disney's handling of Marvel and I think that this will open up some really good possibilities for the future. But we won't know until we see what happens a few years down the road.
  11. Majesticmoose said: Thanks for the view point. I've tried the skill heavy as a player, and I'm interested to see the characteristic heavy from a GM POV. talents… I find a lack of talents that truly differentiate characters from one career toanother, one specialization to another. Bodyguard stands out as a major exception, most talents seem to provide too insignificant a bonus to make a meaningful contribution at character creation. I say that because after character creation, when you ahve 1-3 adventures under your belt talents can really make a character shine, but off the line so to speak, they seem… not so good. But then that could just be the nature of non-linear character creation. Whitewolf has it's fair share of the same thing. I'm just concerned that PCs might actually find minions to be too difficult in the long run in an adventure. My group nearly was defeated by 3 minions and a henchmen. I eben had the "combat" character (pregenerated PCs here) and I failed to hit on every shot, even when spending destiny. Now, I understand that those are the breaks, but I place myself in a new player's shoes and I think that maybe there is a "better" or more advisable build baseline for starting characters. Again, Appreciated. I agree that many talents don't give you much that really differentiates you from the other specializations. They don't really set each other apart, I feel that as a Thief that I should feel very different and unique as opposed to a Scoundrel, I'd like to see less generic talents and more talents that give you unique abilities. This should help combat by giving players more options to do things with, and it makes players feel more competent.
  12. cparadis said: These types of discussions really highlight for me how different people want different things from an RPG and make me glad we have a forum to discuss them. To a certain degree, I think allowing other characteristics to replace brawn and agility in combat hurts the game. It makes characters too similar. I want my character to be different than other people's characters at the table. I want my player who plays a Trando thug to feel like her choice to choose brawn and agility is rewarded when combat happens just like I want my player who plays a bothan information broker to feel rewarded for choosing cunning and intellect when gathering intel. In the end, I want my players to play characters that play differently at the table. I want them to interact with the fiction in different ways. I don't want them to all be the same. If every character has a four in some ability and every character is allowed to use that ability in combat regardless of what the ability is, it starts to blur the lines too much for my taste. Others may disagree. Also, as pointed out there are already talents that allow players to use other abilities in combat situations. Dealing damage is just one option in combat, other characteristics can be useful to generate different effects. Some examples: Anatomy Lesson: Add Intellect to damage Field Commander: Allows allies to take a free maneuver - Improved Field Commander is even better Inspiring Rhetoric: Allows allies to recover strain - Improved Inspiring Rhetoric grants allies boost die Scathing Tirade: Allows a PC to inflict strain, which for most enemies means wounds However, more talents in future specializations might be a nice way to continue giving players options to use abilities other than brawn and agility in combat. Furthermore, as pointed out already, encouraging players who aren't combat focused to interact with the environment with their skills encourages dynamic combat beyond "I stand up and fire at him and because I'm a doctor I use my intellect for my attack ability." Finally, there is a difference between skills and characteristics. If a player is upset because she has a 2 in agility and so "isn't as good at combat" then encourage her to train her Ranged (Light) or whatever skill is applicable to the fighting style she wants to use. Everyone can train skills. Maybe it costs more for her to train that skill than it would someone else, but she was able to train other skills cheaper and can do other things that a combat oriented character may not be able to. As I said, people will have different opinions. Maybe some GMs will make house rules to allow the use of other abilities in combat, but I think that should not be the core assumption. For Exalted5 if you like the Warlord check out the Politico talent tree, some cool stuff in there. I want to discuss the examples of talents that you gave. Those are a good start, but they still are very limited and require a fair deal of investment. The other issue is that those talents are the exception and not the rule. Several of the specializations have no current way of contributing much in combat (without GM fiat), and I feel that if you are going to have talents then why shouldn't they be used to help out those classes with less in-combat viability? My specific issues are the following: Anatomy Lesson: Requires a Destiny point to add Intellect to 1 roll, an extremely high cost for that effect. Takes an action to essentially shuffle your allies, useful but will probably get tedious/ineffective after much use. Also requires that your allies take strain damage (the talent is also only found on the Mercenary Soldier tree, a combat oriented specialization). Inspiring Rhetoric: This is interesting, but still has the problem of only having one option for the character, I fear that a character who relies upon this might feel a lot like a healbot. It is a good step though, and I like that it starts out fairly easy to get into, only requiring more investment for the more useful versions. I haven't seen this put to much use, but I feel that simply regaining 1 strain on 1 ally (having to spend adv. to recover more) is somewhat underwhelming as an option. They still are only indirectly helping combat, keeping strain in check but not having much effect beyond that. Scathing Tirade: Similar to the above, but I feel even more that dealing 1 strain (on a harder check) isn't that useful, is one wound on one opponent that potent? Most characters could just shoot someone and deal more damage. Note also that this and inspiring Rhetoric are apart of the same tree, so other specializations won't have access to them. Like I said, a good start, but what about the other specs that need some help in the combat department. P.S. The primary point of the Warlord is that he can both combat opponents effectively on the front-lines and help his allies. The Politico won't last long on the front lines, (at least not just by his talents).
  13. LethalDose said: Doc, the Weasel said: Just playing devil's advocate here: Would you also argue that there are too few stats for social situations as well? Should the high Agility guy have things to do during the negotiation? Doc, the Weasel said: Just playing devil's advocate here: Would you also argue that there are too few stats for social situations as well? Should the high Agility guy have things to do during the negotiation? No, there are not too few stats for social situations, seeing as how you can directly use at least 3 statistics in such a scene: Willpower (via Coerce) Presence (via negotiate) Cunning (via Deceit) Intelligence (Knowledge skills, less direct, but still easy to apply) Since there are very easily places for at least 3 attributes, and reasonably places for 4 of the 6 attributes, no I don't think there are "too few stats for social situations", because social situations are dictated by a broader variety of skills and attributes than combat situations. Less directly, agility could be used to pickpocket something from the opponent, or use acrobatics and stealth to avoid the situation entirely. But the question itself that you posed is indicative of the fact there is a fundamental problem caused by agility/dexterity-centric game system design in the last 20+ years. "The high Agility guy", as you put it, has become so ubiquitous because of these unbalanced game designs that we have to worry about what he's doing during social encounters. Again, looking back at what GM Chris said about running entire sessions without combat. If we're meant to be impressed that such a feat is possible (Not implying his statement was fueled by arrogance, far from it), it further underscores the problem. If playing a combat free session is so uncommon that even it's possibility/plausibility needs to be made explicit, then combat has to be viewed as a focus more than non-combat. I think the essence of the concern stems from the observation that a majority of the game scenarios rely heavily on a minority of the game's attributes, while a minority of the game scenarios rely heavily on the excluded majority of the game attributes. This imbalance leads to frustrating cost-benefit results when translating character concepts in character sheets using the games rules. The desire (at least, MY desire, I don't claim to speak for others) is to see a wider variety of attributes play larger rolls in combat. This is done by changing the rules to provide more combat applications for the skills in what I referred to as the "excluded majority" above. -WJL I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Combat is a huge part of Star Wars, and while playing a no combat session may be fun for some groups, I'm sure that just as many (if not more) will not agree. I personally feel that combat and non-combat should be of about equal importance.
  14. EldritchFire said: Diplomacy said: Am I misreading something, or are there only very limited stat options for combat in this game? All the ranged skills require Agility, perhaps with some Brawn to handle heavier weapons. All the melee/brawl stuff derives from Brawn. Healing seems to come from Intelligence. Couldn't there be some combat functionality that derives from the other stats, like Willpower or Cunning? Or maybe something like a low-level talent that allows you to replace one score with another i.e. When using Vibroknives in combat, you may use your Cunning stat in place of your Brawn when making a combat roll. I know not every character is going to be an expert damage-dealer, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of having folks in the party who spend all of combat either finding hiding places or looking for plot devices rather than getting engaged in the battle. Then spend XP on skill ranks. Most races will default to 2 in brawn and agility, and it's pretty cheap to get 2 or so ranks in one combat skill, With a modicum of XP investment, you can be rolling 2Y or 2Y1G for your default combat roll. If you want to be good in combat, you have to spend XP for it. If you want to be good at healing, spend the XP. In this game, you very much reap what you sow. -EF But those skills don't really add much to your success. And the points you spent on willpower and cunning are wasted. Why punish people for not focusing on 2 of the 6 abilities in the game? Why have 6 abilities if only 2 of them are going to be useful in combat (something the designers explicitly said was supposed to be an important part of the game). I realize that out-of-combat skill use is important, but right now out of combat skill usage is much less defined than combat and that impacts how useful a player will feel. I don't think that reaping what you sow should include setting up certain character concepts to completely overpower all others when it comes to certain tasks (such as combat).
  15. GM Chris said: Gamerunner said: I ran a session on Fri. with a brawling contest. My problem was that brawn = damage to Stress, but soak rarley alows anything to get through. So most boxers/fighters are able to resist anything they can dish out themselves. Am I missing something? This is a really good observation! But it actually mirrors brawling pretty well… Watch a boxing match with two equally matched fighters. Watch it go on for 8 rounds before a knockout. How many hundreds of punches are thrown that land? Hell… how many dozens connect in a single round? Watch a punch connect, but simply get "shrugged off" by the other boxer… (hit his guard arm or whatever). This is exactly the example of the the base Brawl damage (from Brawn) equaling out to the defender's Soak (based off Brawn). And if they have the same brawn, this is how it will continuously go. But as has been said - it comes down to multiple successes on a hit. So a boxer might only suffer 1 or 2 strain damage on a really good hit - but that's boxing! It's a game of attrition and wearing down your foe after many many hits. Keep in mind that all this assumes that the boxers are of the same skill level and physical capability. A more skillful brawler will naturally be generating more successes (due to a larger dice pool), which can even overcome a much Brawn-ier opponent, if the discrepancy is large enough. It also means that Mike Tyson (5 ranks in Brawl, and at least a 4, probably a 5 in Brawn) will DESTROY an average person with a 2 in Brawn, easily doing Strain damage equal to their threshold in a few hits, with enough successes. This is also where those defensive talents come into play so heavily (and why any pugilist is sure to have them), as well as judicious use of the Guarded Stance. All of this is also assuming that Truimphs or advantage activated crits don't come into play. MAN, I love this dice mechanic. I think it replicates a Brawl extremely well! See, I don't really care that it emulates a brawl, I'd rather have combat be fun and resolve itself quickly. Currently, while the two brawlers are going at it, the guy with the Blaster Rifle shoots the opponent stone dead. Realistic? Yeah, probably. Rewarding/Fun? Probably not for the player who spent a lot of effort into making a brawling based character. The opponent's skill doesn't mean as much in ranged combat, why does it have to make melee combat so tedious?
  • Create New...